N-edits

Czechia

Please do not add the Czechia into the top of the article. Its use is so minimal that it doesn't deserve place there and adding it constantly only leads to revert wars. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia

N-edits, Welcome to Wikipedia! ;)--Aminz 21:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. We will definitely miss you. I was touched when you said that all your edits were in good faith. My edits are also in good faith. I think you are Christian. Actually I personally love Christians. They are humble. They are friendly. It is unfortunate that I don't agree with them on theological issues. I try to find as much Christian friend as possible that if I made a wrong decision in choosing Islam over Christianity, I would still have the hope that my Christian friends would remember sometime in heaven, that they would sometime remember that we had a Muslim friend, and ask god to have mercy on me.

Thanks for barnstar again. --Aminz 09:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hello

N-edits, Best of Luck in your exams! Best of Luck in finding jobs!

N-edits, to be honest with you, I should say I have not yet found any religion that makes me feel comfortable. Judaism and Islam both in certain situations share severe elements of violence. Christianity is not so, as long as New Testament is concerned but they believe in the Hebrew bible anyway. My problem with Christianity is Trinity and some other passages. All in all, I sometimes think maybe I should abandon everything. There is no way for me. I am doomed. --Aminz 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Republics of Russia

Thanks for identifying yourself, and, of course, thank you for your addition—I, for one, like it quite a bit. If it's not too much to ask, could you also to please reference that table, so readers know where the information came from? Looking forward to working with you in the future.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response—I put off replying to your message and eventually forgot all about it. As for the wording, I have no objections to either of the variants you proposed. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Policia Bonaerense

Hi there.

1. Spanish names are used in several articles when they are more often used than English ones. See for instance Talk:Río de la Plata/name. Check the Spanish wikipedia, Policía Bonaerense is the preferred term.
2. You Copy Edited the content of the article instead of moving it, what produced a disrupt of the article's history. It is normal procedure to delete the newly created article and restore the previous one. I copied the information from the new article to the old one, so I'm not sure what kind of information was 'lost'.
3. I didn't move it to the name you proposed, nor left a redirection from it, because the name was plain incorrect: Police Service of the Province of Buenos Aires is just bad. The proper name is Policía de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, I see no service there.
4. Police of the Buenos Aires Province is the direct translation of the official name, or perhaps Buenos Aires Province Police, you can edit the Buenos Aires Province page if you think that should be changed.
5. I never claimed to be an English native speaker. Mistakes in your edits tell me neither are you.
6. I'm not sure what you mean with 'anti-social', I'm just trying to do things right.

Here you have the content of the deleted article.:

---

The Police Service of the Province of Buenos Aires (Spanish: Policía de la Provincia de Buenos Aires) is the police service responsible for policing Buenos Aires province, Argentina .

It is one of the biggest police services of Argentina, responsible for policing a province of 14 million inhabitants, about 38% of Argentina's entire population.

It is informally known as the Policía Bonaerense, the word Bonaerense being the adjective pertaining to the Province of Buenos Aires (as opposed to the Federal Capital district of Buenos Aires city).

clarification on Wikipedia policy

I haven't gone to the talk page yet, but I just want to clarify what Wikipedia policy actually says regarding unsourced edits. From WP:RS: "It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor." It really can't be any clearer. - Merzbow 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Salvation" section

Generally, it is best Wiki-etiquette to discuss any major changes, or for that matter potentially controversial ones, on the Talk page of an article prior to making them. This way, a consensus can be reached on the material and an edit-war avoided. —Aiden 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Crusades

Sorry for the revert in Crusades, i had not looked closer to the changes. (after so many anon vandalisms recently, i got carried away...). Hectorian 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! I was a bit surprised by the RV, but I then I was being lazy and editing anonymously. We all make mistakes sometimes! N-edits 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

UK

Your edit here removed a source about Imans on the Times. Was there a reason as you lef the ref tag in but put no link? Sorry this is a while ago but I just noticed the change! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the very delayed response! I have been away from Wikipedia!

It looks like I just made an error, I'll check it nore carefully next time. Sorry!

N-edits 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Though I should check if it was some sort of reminder for later. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sealand

While in most cases I would be for Sealand being a disambiguation page, in this case I would think The Principality of Sealand belonging on the Sealand page. In the ned no one is looking for the other Sealands. Especially with your bias (and awfully negative sounding if you ask me) as seen with the text "by the illegal squatter family of Paddy Roy Bates". Also note that all of the links I see that link to Sealand are speaking of the Micronation. --Indolences 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might think about making Washington a disambiguation page. -Indolences 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your message.

Firstly, you have no evidence no one is looking for the other Sealands, so sealand should go to a disambig page.

Secondly "the illegal squatter family of Paddy Roy Bates" is not bias, it is a statement of fact.

Finally, I have no idea what relevance Washington has. :-/

N-edits 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what you wrote is true, but it has a negative POV. "Thomas Jefferson, the famous slaveowner and President of the USA" is now what you would put on the Jefferson (disambiguation) page would you? It's true, but it does not represent the main idea of the article. And concerning the Washington comment. Washington can refer to the state, Washington DC, George Washington and many other topics. And because Sealand's claims of sovereignty are controversial, the article should not be The Principality of Sealand. I'm guessing you are not a fan of "micronations", so you gave the article an odd name, "Sealand (HM Fort Roughs)", not (micronation) (principality) or even moving it to The Principality of Sealand. The most links to an article on the new "Sealand (disambiguation)" page is 12. I did not look at the "Zealand" and other variants, however. The number of links pointing to "Sealand" as at least 150 (I only went through three pages). Also before moving such a large and known article please consider using the Talk pages first. :) -Indolences 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin Cultures/ Every country

In Italy, there is a big German population in South Tyrol so Italy is not a Latin country either, according to your definition. In Spain, you have the Basque minority and the Roma people, Celtic infulences in Galicia, a huge heritage from the Islamic era... shall I continue?

The fact that there are some parts of France that one may not consider completely Latin doesn't change the fact that French culture is based on the Latin culture. Aaker 10:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dedan Kimathi

Even sourced information can be biased and libelous. No wikipedia policy prevents removing such information. At the moment, header of the article seems quite provocative. I've done my best to keep the article as neutral as possible. It isn't an easy task, when the subject in question is treated as a terrorist by other side and as a hero by others. Most available sources are either Kenyan or British, meaning they are not necessarily objective enough. Therefore, carefulness should be appreciated when adding new information. Especially, one-sided edits should not be accepted. Julius Sahara 05:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

template

hello N-edits. while i agree that the Muslims and controversy template may need to be split into a temporary criticism template, putting the new template into articles where it is not the main theme (i.e. Islam and slavery, Banu Qurayza etc.) doesn't seem appropriate. for the most part, these articles deal with jurisprudence, historical events, concepts, and so on. that 'critics' use these aspects in their attacks (as they would almost every aspect of Islam) doesn't contribute much notability to the topic than it otherwise would have. thanks ITAQALLAH 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

let us take a case in point: Islam and slavery. much of the article deals with slavery in Islamic thought, jurisprudence, and history, as well as apparently modern instances of it. there is very little in terms of criticism in the article: criticism is not a main theme of this article, and very few academic scholars criticise Islam for permitting (although severely regulating) slavery. so Islam and slavery as a device for criticism of Islam is hardly a significant feature of what has been covered in the article - which is why an eye-catching template at the top of the article is kind of misleading IMO. ITAQALLAH 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

i would certainly maintain that very few academic sources (i am not referring to crude polemic, which for the large part has no place on Wikipedia) criticise Islam for restricting the avenues of legal enslavement. we are also not required to present the article from a Western-centrist perspective - an article doesn't adopt a theme of criticism simply because Western society finds it abhorrent. it would certainly constitute undue weight to place a template on the top of an article to which it is not intimately related. indeed, it seems we will not agree on this, it may be prudent to defer to the wider community. ITAQALLAH 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam template

Great work! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This template gives definition to the COI articles, however the other controversies template should be adjusted so they're unique and things are not redundant. This is a step in the right direction and ItaqAllah has made a premature decision to nominate it for deletion (given that the template helps improve COI articles, his action was not surprising). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If this template is gone, it should be recreated while removing the redundancies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Criticism of Islam

Template:Criticism of Islam has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition

Hello there. I notice you've moved the Prohibition related pages around and was wondering if you'd read the talk pages for those articles before deciding on the moves? I ask as there has been conversations regarding such moves and renamings in the past and consensus has always ended up with it remaining as it was. Ben W Bell talk 11:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)